Search

Objectives: This study evaluates the accuracy and portability of a natural language processing (NLP) tool for extracting clinical findings of influenza from clinical notes across two large healthcare systems. Effectiveness is evaluated on how well NLP supports downstream influenza case-detection for disease surveillance., Methods: We independently developed two NLP parsers, one at Intermountain Healthcare (IH) in Utah and the other at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) using local clinical notes from emergency department (ED) encounters of influenza. We measured NLP parser performance for the presence and absence of 70 clinical findings indicative of influenza. We then developed Bayesian network models from NLP processed reports and tested their ability to discriminate among cases of (1) influenza, (2) non-influenza influenza-like illness (NI-ILI), and (3) 'other' diagnosis., Results: On Intermountain Healthcare reports, recall and precision of the IH NLP parser were 0.71 and 0.75, respectively, and UPMC NLP parser, 0.67 and 0.79. On University of Pittsburgh Medical Center reports, recall and precision of the UPMC NLP parser were 0.73 and 0.80, respectively, and IH NLP parser, 0.53 and 0.80. Bayesian case-detection performance measured by AUROC for influenza versus non-influenza on Intermountain Healthcare cases was 0.93 (using IH NLP parser) and 0.93 (using UPMC NLP parser). Case-detection on University of Pittsburgh Medical Center cases was 0.95 (using UPMC NLP parser) and 0.83 (using IH NLP parser). For influenza versus NI-ILI on Intermountain Healthcare cases performance was 0.70 (using IH NLP parser) and 0.76 (using UPMC NLP parser). On University of Pisstburgh Medical Center cases, 0.76 (using UPMC NLP parser) and 0.65 (using IH NLP parser)., Conclusion: In all but one instance (influenza versus NI-ILI using IH cases), local parsers were more effective at supporting case-detection although performances of non-local parsers were reasonable.

Context: During public health emergencies, office-based frontline clinicians are critical partners in the detection, treatment, and control of disease. Communication between public health authorities and frontline clinicians is critical, yet public health agencies, medical societies, and healthcare delivery organizations have all called for improvements., Objectives: Describe communication processes between public health and frontline clinicians during the first wave of the 2009 novel influenza A(H1N1) pandemic; assess clinicians' use of and knowledge about public health guidance; and assess clinicians' perceptions and preferences about communication during a public health emergency., Design and Methods: During the first wave of the pandemic, we performed a process analysis and surveyed 509 office-based primary care providers in Utah., Setting and Participants: Public health and healthcare leaders from major agencies involved in emergency response in Utah and office-based primary care providers located throughout Utah., Main Outcome Measure(s): Communication process and information flow, distribution of e-mails, proportion of clinicians who accessed key Web sites at least weekly, clinicians' knowledge about recent guidance and perception about e-mail load, primary information sources, and qualitative findings from clinician feedback., Results: The process analysis revealed redundant activities and messaging. The 141 survey respondents (28%) received information from a variety of sources: 68% received information from state public health; almost 100% received information from health care organizations. Only one-third visited a state public health or institutional Web site frequently enough (at least weekly) to obtain updated guidance. Clinicians were knowledgeable about guidance that did not change during the first wave; however, correct knowledge was lower after guidance changed. Clinicians felt overwhelmed by e-mail volume, preferred a single institutional e-mail for clinical guidance, and suggested that new information be concise and clearly identified., Conclusion: : Communication between public health, health care organizations and clinicians was redundant and overwhelming and can be enhanced considering clinician preferences and institutional communication channels.

Context. Poison control centers (PCCs) and emergency departments (EDs) rely upon telephone communication to collaborate. PCCs and EDs each create electronic records for the same patient during the course of collaboration, but those electronic records are not shared. Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe the current, telephone based process of PCC-ED communication as the basis for potential process improvement. Materials and methods. This study was conducted at one PCC and two tertiary care EDs. We developed workflow diagrams to depict clinician descriptions of the current process, descriptions obtained through interviews of key informants. We also analyzed transcripts of phone calls between emergency departments and the poison control center, corresponding to a random sample of 120 PCC cases occurring January 1-December 31, 2011. Results. Collaboration between the ED and PCC takes place during multiple telephone calls, and the process is unsupported by shared documentation. The process occurs in three phases: notification, collaborative care, and ongoing consultation. In the ED, multiple care providers may communicate with the PCC, but only one ED care provider communicates with the poison control center specialist at a time. Handoffs occur for both ED and PCC. Collaborative care planning is common and most cases involve some type of request for information, whether vital signs, laboratory results, or verification that a treatment was administered. We found evidence of inefficiencies and safety vulnerabilities, including the inability of PCC specialists to reach ED care providers, telephone calls routed through multiple ED staff members in an attempt to reach the appropriate care provider, and exchange of clinical information with non-clinical staff. In 55% of cases, the patient was discharged prior to any synchronous telephone communication between the ED care provider and a PCC specialist. Ambiguous communication of information was observed in 22% of cases. In 12% of cases, a PCC specialist was unable to obtain requested information from the ED. Discussion and conclusion. Inefficiencies and vulnerabilities occur in telephone-based PCC-ED communication. Prudence begs consideration of alternative processes and models of ED-PCC communication and information sharing, including a process that supports collaboration with health information exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context. The US emergency departments and poison control centers use telephone communication to exchange information about poison exposed patients. Electronically exchanged patient information could better support care for poisoned patients by improving information availability for decision making and by decreasing unnecessary emergency department telephone interruptions. As federal initiatives push to increase clinical health information exchange (HIE), it is essential to assess the readiness of US poison control centers. We conducted a nationwide Delphi study to determine consensus on legal, operational, and clinical considerations that are important for electronic information exchange between emergency departments and poison control centers. Materials and methods. A national panel of US experts (n = 71) in emergency medicine and poison control participated in a Delphi study, September-December 2010. Panelists rated statements describing concepts related to implementation, adoption, or potential outcomes of electronic information exchange between emergency departments and poison control centers. The statements reflected panelist responses to initial open-ended questions and literature-based concepts. Results. A total of 71 panelists agreed to participate. The response rate for each round ranged from 0.73 to 0.77. Most (114/121) statements reached consensus. Seven statements failed to reach consensus. Panelists indicated that user involvement in the design of systems and tools is important. Workflow integration, safety, evidence of benefit, and outcomes are high-importance issues. Discussion/conclusions. Future research and development related to electronic information exchange should address high-importance issues: safety, patient outcomes, workflow integration, and evidence of benefit. It should also address key barriers: initial and ongoing costs associated with electronic information exchange, the absence of software and tools to facilitate exchange, and the need for training. Users should be involved in the design of an electronic information exchange process, and the process should support, not replace, verbal communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of health information technology implementation in improving medical care workflow. There are potential dangers of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) implementation, including the workflow changes that were necessary to use CPOE functions for ordering, verification and dispensing medication. The huge potential for confounding and the lack of substantiated causes, the crude mortality risk difference between study periods was real and unfortunate. Computer-assisted interventions have helped process outcomes such as medication errors.